I want a new OC, HC and QB.

#26
#26
poor preparation
inaccurate passes
dropped passes
FUMBLE
soft defense
NO ADJUSTMENTS

same ol' same ol'
 
#27
#27
Lexvol said:
I understand that, but this game was the essence of Fulmer ball. Yes, the offense had opportunity to perform more consistently. When the chips were down they actually delivered. The defense, on the other hand retreated into limbo.

I've seen it too many times over the past few years not to recognize it. Chavis was completely outcoached in the second half.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the fact that the defense dropped the ball at the end, but I think that this mentality comes from our reliance on the defense always bailing us out at the last minute.

God knows when Casey Clausen was scrambling all over the field like a second grade Catholic school girl on 3rd and long, the defense stepped it up and got us game-winning stops. It has become the essence of UT football to rely on the defense, I think. And it's true, defense wins games, but I thnk we take them for granted.

There has to be a balance. You can't always allow your offense to fail to put points on the board by capitalizing on opportunities with pleny of time left and expect the defense to save our arses with 45 seconds left on the clock. Yes, it's their job, but it's the offense's job to make sure it doesn't come down to the wire.
 
#28
#28
Sorry, the offense was ineffective for over 3 quarters of that game. Additionally, aren't the chips on the table in overtime?
 
#29
#29
utmba93 said:
Maybe the problem is the Fulmer ball part. We should have put that one away early.

I agree they dominated us with halftime adjustments versus our defense. I can't believe how much less talent they hand on Offense versus our defense--and we couldn't dominate them. No debate from me on that one.
Click to expand...

In honesty the real problem is 60 minutes of effort. It seems like one game a year the Vols will put two halves of football together. Last year it was the Ga game.

I lay this loss at the feet of Chavis because in the end he was handed the win, and with his athletes and his experience he isn't supposed to let this happen. In reality if the Vols had simply played 60 minutes of football we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
#30
#30
Sadly both of you are correct. Which means we failed on both sides of the ball. Had either the o or d stepped up in any little way we would have won. Chow obviously made adjustments at the half, Chavis did not make any, except to move to the prevent( that's always worked well for us in the past, roll eyes). ucla's d brought more pressure on a struggling Crompton and no adjustments were made by Fulmer/Clawson to put our players(no matter the talent level) in a position to win. It was coaching on both sides and as of now does not bode well for our season. I hope they will change their ways, we have 9 days to work it out.
 
Last edited:
#31
#31
utmba93 said:
BTW, I asked in another thread and haven't read or re-watched the game, but did anyone notice if Crompton had or used audibles to get out of some of the pass plays? What didn't he see that the rest of us saw?

What were his instructions on audibles?
Click to expand...

That's what baffles me. UCLA wasn't hiding the blitz. They were stacking the line. That's one thing we don't know:

Was Clawson telling Crompton to look for the open man underneath to beat the blitz and Crompton simply wasn't listening... or had he just lost his head... and was completely overwhelmed. Either way, we can't compete without a QB, and apparently Crompton is our best option. He better get his head screwed on straight, though, and quick.
 
#33
#33
Another problem is a blowout generates buzz... and with buzz comes expectations.

Barely winning keeps us as the underdogs... which Fulmer seemingly wants.
 
#34
#34
This game came down to coaching and adjustments. We were dominating on D in the first half, as we usually do look pretty good. Then, at halfime, it's up to the coaches to make adjustments, which most good coaches do.

Then, it's up to the coaches to adjust to the adjustments. Let me sum it up:

Norm Chow vs. John Chavis

Chavis is toast if the other OC makes any adjustments. Remember the UK game last year? 1st haf, we blitz and smash Woodson, and dominate. 2nd half, they make adjustment to screens to take advantage of our blitzes, and we are lost. It's like they put kryptonite in their jocks.

Think about this...what if we didn't have the superior player at every position? What if Ricky Turtleneck and Norm Chow had equal talent to us? Can you say 70-0?
 
#35
#35
DC Vol said:
Another problem is a blowout generates buzz... and with buzz comes expectations.

Barely winning keeps us as the underdogs... which Fulmer seemingly wants.
Click to expand...

Underdogs or not, if things don't change substantially and quickly, brother Tebow is gonna hang 75 on us this year.
 
#36
#36
ksushalovesthevols said:
I don't disagree with the fact that the defense dropped the ball at the end, but I think that this mentality comes from our reliance on the defense always bailing us out at the last minute.

God knows when Casey Clausen was scrambling all over the field like a second grade Catholic school girl on 3rd and long, the defense stepped it up and got us game-winning stops. It has become the essence of UT football to rely on the defense, I think. And it's true, defense wins games, but I thnk we take them for granted.

There has to be a balance. You can't always allow your offense to fail to put points on the board by capitalizing on opportunities with pleny of time left and expect the defense to save our arses with 45 seconds left on the clock. Yes, it's their job, but it's the offense's job to make sure it doesn't come down to the wire.
Click to expand...

That is an indictment of Fulmer and Fulmer ball. He has made a living sitting on three point leads. Chavis is not able to carry that torch anymore.
 
#37
#37
Voldaddy said:
This game came down to coaching and adjustments. We were dominating on D in the first half, as we usually do look pretty good. Then, at halfime, it's up to the coaches to make adjustments, which most good coaches do.

Then, it's up to the coaches to adjust to the adjustments. Let me sum it up:

Norm Chow vs. John Chavis

Chavis is toast if the other OC makes any adjustments. Remember the UK game last year? 1st haf, we blitz and smash Woodson, and dominate. 2nd half, they make adjustment to screens to take advantage of our blitzes, and we are lost. It's like they put kryptonite in their jocks.
Think about this...what if we didn't have the superior player at every position? What if Ricky Turtleneck and Norm Chow had equal talent to us? Can you say 70-0?
Click to expand...


This is a terrifying prospect, for too many reasons to name.
 
#38
#38
Lexvol said:
In honesty the real problem is 60 minutes of effort. It seems like one game a year the Vols will put two halves of football together. Last year it was the Ga game.

I lay this loss at the feet of Chavis because in the end he was handed the win, and with his athletes and his experience he isn't supposed to let this happen. In reality if the Vols had simply played 60 minutes of football we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for our D not stopping them on the last drive, and with all the new stuff on offense, given the situation, this was a game that Chavis should have delivered.

BTW, I don't think the lack of two good halfs is a motivation problem on the players part. They look inspired but they aren't lined up in the right sets and don't execute the right tactics from the sets they are in.


Examples (last drive from memory):
Sets... why did we have 4.2/4.3 CB's 15-20 yards off what looked like 5-flat forty WR's?

Tactics: why didn't our DE's bump the TE's on the way to the QB on the last drive?
 
#39
#39
I really feel the defense was more to blame in losing this game in the second half, (actually the 4th quarter). Remember the saying, "defense wins games, offense sells tickets". I think that's how it goes, but it is true.
 
#40
#40
ksushalovesthevols said:
Underdogs or not, if things don't change substantially and quickly, brother Tebow is gonna hang 75 on us this year.
Click to expand...

I'm having to stretch my rational thought to wrap my mind around NOT running the ball 40-50 times. That's all I could come up with.

Crompton needs experience throwing and we don't want to blow out USC because it keeps us as the underdogs.

Keep in mind this is the guy who talks about "magic dust" and the "penalty monster" as reasons for losses.
 
#41
#41
utmba93 said:
There is no excuse for our D not stopping them on the last drive, and with all the new stuff on offense, this is a game that Chavis should have delivered.

BTW, I don't think the lack of two good halfs is a motivation problem on the players part. They look inspired but they aren't lined up in the right sets and don't execute the right tactics from the sets they are in.


Examples (last drive from memory):
Sets... why did we have 4.2/4.3 CB's 15-20 yards off what looked like 5-flat forty WR's?

Tactics: why didn't our DE's bump the TE's on the way to the QB on the last drive?
Click to expand...

The ends were so concerned about the three step drops that they were completely releasing the TE to the LBs. They were getting off the line way too easily.
 
#43
#43
It's a 50/50 deal. Offense and defense, Chavis and Clawson, Fulmer calls the main shots, in his lap again. It looked exactly like David Greene and UGA at Neyland except UGA had about 30 secs. less time, when they came back and beat us.

Pooch kick, failed,
defense-same-failed,
not blitzing-check,
heart break, check.
Failing to be taught a lesson by past experiences-priceless.
 
#44
#44
ksushalovesthevols said:
I think the defense made far fewer mistakes here than the offense. Failing to capitalize on several shots at the endzone, the missed field goals (wiiiiiiiiide right), Crompton's inability to hit targets, offense failing to line up correctly or run the correct routes was far worse than the couple of defensive mistakes that were made. Lest you forget, the offense capitalized on the several defensive picks we had to score. If we scored on the two fairly reasonable field goals that we missed, we wouldn't be in this boat. Or, for that matter, if Crompton could consistently find his receivers.
Click to expand...

I am kinda on the fence on the whole "who was worse" question. I had very high expectations of a offense with what is (or was) being taunted as one of the most dominant offensive lines in the country. Crompton sucked but did not have a lot of time back there. The play calling was horrendous and you HAVE to capitalize in the red zone.

On the other hand, if you are a top notch SEC defense, you stop a 3rd string QB from driving down with a go ahead drive with 1:54 left. That game never should have went into overtime.
 
#45
#45
utfantilidie said:
It's a 50/50 deal. Offense and defense, Chavis and Clawson, Fulmer calls the main shots, in his lap again. It looked exactly like David Greene and UGA at Neyland except UGA had about 30 secs. less time, when they came back and beat us.

Pooch kick, failed,
defense-same-failed,
not blitzing-check,
heart break, check.
Failing to be taught a lesson by past experiences-priceless.
Click to expand...

The expression on Stev-o's face in avatar sums up the game nicely.
 
#46
#46
how could you NOT blame the D?

we got torched in the 2nd half by one of the worst (maybe the worst) QBs we will face all year.

I would put money down right now that Craft will not have as productive a half the rest of this season.
 
#47
#47
utVOLman said:
how could you NOT blame the D?

we got torched in the 2nd half by one of the worst (maybe the worst) QBs we will face all year.

I would put money down right now that Craft will not have as productive a half the rest of this season.
Click to expand...

Blaming the players and blaming Chavis' calls are 2 totally different things. Before we went to a soft zone, we gave up a total of 138 yards in 44 minutes of playtime.
 
#48
#48
DC Vol said:
Blaming the players and blaming Chavis' calls are 2 totally different things. Before we went to a soft zone, we gave up a total of 138 yards in 44 minutes of playtime.
Click to expand...
yeah, I should have been more clear, I specifically meant the defensive coaching...
 
#49
#49
utVOLman said:
yeah, I should have been more clear, I specifically meant the defensive coaching...
Click to expand...

Okay, because I can't fault any player on the Defense for any plays against UCLA. Missed tackles can be counted on one hand, that I saw. Maybe the one play where DHam got the pass interference... That's honestly the only one I can think of.
 
#50
#50
ksushalovesthevols said:
Honestly, I rather like Chavis. Most of the defensive problems we've had have had to do with lack of experience and poor execution rather than bad coaching. I suppose the latter can be related back to poor coaching, but still, comparatively speaking, I've been much happier with our defense than our offense over the last 8 years. Chavis' defense has saved our bums in plenty of games.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious???????????

Chavis is the worst D Coordinator in the game now. He is lazy he does not recruit he does not have a clue how to make (halftime adjustments) at all!!!!!!! And saved our bums he pretty much costs us about 2-3 games a year. Teams come out in the second half and make adjustments and we just hope we can hang on until the end.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top